Safe Injection Facilities

Vancouver Injection Drug User Study (VIDUS) is a project that gives a prospective study and has over 1500 IDU 's enlisted to assist since 1996 and gathers data on drug use, health, sexual activity, etc. Some of the topics discussed included: prison culture, availability and price of drugs and equipment, drug use, VIDUS shows that the risk of HIV infection indicated that incarcerated injection drug users were associated with a greater risk of 2.7 times (Small, Kain, Laliberte, Schechter, O 'Shaughnessy & Spittal, 2005).

Worldwide and in more than 80 cities in 38 US states, NEP has emerged to address the risks of injection drug use. There are currently 113 NEPs in the US, and in Hawaii, the NEP is funded by the State Health Department. The NEP offers drug treatment referral, methadone clinic and a peer education program to teach IDUs the benefits of not sharing needles. HIV rates among injecting drug users have declined 5% in 1989 to 1.1% in 1994-96. From 1993-1996, 74% of NEP clients reported no needle sharing, and 44% of those who report sharing admitted that the used needles were previously cleaned with bleach. Harm Reduction Central in Hollywood, CA, reported a low rate of shared needles of young IDUs, specifically those of ages

Using injection sites that not only provide the individual with the instruments but also the knowledge of same practices would be very beneficial investment for Canada, thus the previously stated example of how Canada has already enabled and succeeded with this method within Vancouver British Columbia. If Canada were to take on more of these harm reduction initiatives then there could be more individuals benefiting from the process and as a result street crime with drugs would also be dramatically decreased. However in reality Canada has already been practicing harm reduction strategies for centuries, they have just been practiced without the label of harm reduction. “In 1987, as concerns rose in the community about the spread of HIV through injection drug use, bleach programs were started at Alexandra Park in Toronto; these developed into syringe exchange programs in 1988 and were taken over by the City of Toronto in 1989” (Cavalieri, W. & Riley, D. 2012, Harm Reduction in Canada: The Many Faces of Regression. 3). With every initiative designed to help society there will always be those who disagree with the approach. Even though there is overwhelming evidence that harm reduction techniques such as injection sites work, funding is a big issue mainly on account of these methods advertise and

Needle exchange programs have long been a controversial subject with both the general population and government lawmakers. The primary objective for needle exchange programs (NEPs) is to prevent the spread of blood-borne disease and is very successful in doing so. But, issues of morality due to the perception of drug enablement and the stigma of intravenous drug users (IDUs) and their potential effects on the decline of society are continually used as arguments for those against NEPs. It has been proven through many studies that these programs not only reduce harms associated with intravenous drug use, they are also cost effective and reduce the circulation of used syringes to the general population. Beyond epidemiological efforts, NEPs also provide a de-stigmatized center for gathering and offers health services such as HIV testing, counselling and referrals to treatment for drug addiction. This paper aims to highlight the efficacy of needle exchange programs, safe injection sites and address the social and political issues associated with them.

A safe injection site (SIS) has been placed in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside where drug use is a challenging problem. The program is a vital piece of the cities known harm reduction approach to its serious problems with homelessness, drugs, crime and AIDS. Canada has drastically shifted its method. Going from punishing drug users to establishing the plan of harm reduction. Since 2003 when the supervised SIS opened, it has presented a safe health-focused center where drug users have access to inject illegal drugs using sterile equipment in a clean environment under the supervision of medically trained professionals. Although there are some serious concerns about the

Brian Johnson expressed his opinion of the issue at hand, “[l]et's see the proposal for “safe injection sites” for what it is — just another way to help dealers sell their drugs in the guise of being “safe.”” (Johnson). This idea speaks more loudly than any other presented in the discussion. “Safe injection sites” are not the right way to go about helping addiction. There are many flaws in this decision that can affect the outcome of a patient. Agreeing to continue to provide the drugs to which they are already addicted is nothing short of naive. This is just allowing the dealers to continue making money on something that is illegal; it should be prohibited, not advertised.

Harm reduction can be defined as an approach that aims to reduce the consequences of high risk behaviours such as injection drug use on the individual and on society as a whole. Harm reduction programs provide injection drug users with access to a clean injection environment, sterile injections, drug-preparation equipment and safe disposal of contaminated material at the time of injection. Staff members in harm reduction facilities provide health teaching, anonymous HIV testing, information on addiction treatment, condoms and assist in connecting clients to social and health services (Semaan et al., 2011; Ball, 2007). Although, the benefits of harm reduction are evident through reduction of accidental drug overdose and prevention of

An increase in drug use, specifically opiates, has overwhelmed the United States. This behavior has led to a rise in the transmission of HIV/Hepatitis C which would be otherwise preventable. The needle exchange programs in Moorhead, Milwaukee, and Scott County are working to lower the transmission rate and increase participation in treatment programs.

Health services for people who inject drugs are subject to ‘considerable community concern and media and political attention’ (MSIC Evaluation Committee, 2003, p. 177). The development of a policy network, in July 1997 involved a multiplicity of actors who played an important role in the policy process. A NSW Parliamentary Joint Select Committee of ‘public and private spheres’ (Dennis, 2013, p. 78) was established to consider the feasibility for a trial of a MSIC. The Committee extensively reviewed the arguments contending for and arguing against proposals for a trial, and a suitable location. Copious submissions and evidence was put forward to the Committee with many advocators endorsing the action commenting that ‘injecting rooms may contribute to the reduction in the number of fatal and non-fatal overdoses by providing access to resuscitation and disseminating information about safer using practices’ (Parliament of New South Wales, 1998, p. 82).

Canadian society has always dealt with some percentage of the population who have become addicted to intravenous drugs. Left unchecked, the ecology of IV drug use creates a number of societal issues as well as a greater burden to the already over-stretched Canadian healthcare system. Legally and financially supporting safe injection sites is just a matter of simple economics.

Moreover, NEPs will provide sterile needle and syringes to avoid exchanges of used injections between drug users. Since NEPs are implemented, the number of HIV cases and other diseases are declined. In Saskatchewan, distributing needles reduces the total costs for health care because needle exchange programs reduce the transmission of HIV by one-third and accommodate a return of four thousand dollars investment in health care costs. (Thompson) Needle exchange program provide safety not only in drug addicts but also provide safety in the community. Many of needle exchange programs perform a one-for-one basis to decrease the exposure of contaminated needles in streets and playgrounds so that children and other people are away from needle sticks accident. (Franciscus)

Safe injection sites will not be helpful towards the opioid crisis. If the United States give people a place “to safely shoot up” (Mendell), they will end up just using the drugs outside of the center, at their drug dealer’s houses. Many humans will not admit that they have a problem or need help, they are afraid of judgement of others more than they are of their problem. The opioid users would “delay gratification until

Safe injection sites possess many salutary benefits related to public health safety of the drug using community. Safe injection sites provide a safe place for drug users to inject drugs into their bodies so they do not have to reuse needles and can also be supervised by nurses constantly while they do so. Insite is the sole safe injection site in all of Canada and the expansion of other facilities has been fiercely contested by policy makers not due to empirical criminological evidence, but simply due to one dimensional classical conservatism inspired ideology and illogical hysteria. The fear propagated by the past Conservative government that by assisting drug users by feeding their addiction and by gathering so many law breakers in concentrated areas would correlate to an increased rate in crime. The traditionalistic ideology of the Conservative government mandated them to adamantly oppose the prospect of safe injection sites let alone their expansion into other regions and provinces regardless of the fact that there were no adverse effects for the community in terms of increased crime. Safe injection sites were introduced to Vancouver in 2003 under a special exemption under section 56 under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which was granted by the Liberal government via Health Canada as a desperate means to help resolve the growing health concerns in the area. In 1998, a report by then British Columbia public health officer John Millar decried the situation in the

There are many ways in which people who are addicted to intravenous drugs are perceived by our society. People sometimes believe the addicted person is to blame for their circumstance and substance dependence and some feel serious drug addicts are a “lost cause” due to a lack of values or flawed character. “Persons who struggle with addictions often are depicted as criminals or prostitutes, weak, lazy and morally corrupt” (Bartlett, R., Brown, L., Shattell, M., Wright, T., Lewallen, L. (2013). These stereotypes paint people with addiction negatively; a percentage of people who live with serious addiction are capable of recovery with the right attitude, support and healthcare. Street level healthcare services such as; safe injection sites, provide accessable resources at street level for people to make the choice to live healthier lifestyles. Govement funding and support is needed to make these projects possible to improve the health of Canadians. Safe injection sites are proven to be positive contributions to communities, save lives, reduce harm and open doors towards recovery for people from the grip of addiction.

Even though there are already harsh penalties toward those who contain and use illicit drugs, it would not be possible to give them these sentences without their presence. Many legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco have relatively dangerous affects that could lead to death in the same ways illegal substances can, which brings upon the question of why an individual’s well-being would ever be put before the law. INSITE has proven to the world that providing a secure and reliable facility for addicts to inject drugs will not only prevent them from harm and provide safety for the public, but it will also encourage users to seek recovery. Research shows that associations with the safe-injection site has caused a 30 percent increase in rehabilitation programs, and an estimate of $14 million in savings and 1000 HIV preventions through the course of 10 years (Mosher, 2011: 377). With the significant amount of evidence that INSITE has positively impacted toward society and its members, there is no reason not to launch additional safe-injection sites in areas where they are